Labour and Gaddafi
Discussion
Can't see the problem.
The bloke might not have been innocent but he certainly should not have been found guilty of the offence charged on the paltry and undependable evidence produced at the trial. The evidence wasn't there. Releasing him saved us the money of a costly and embarrassing appeal.
The relatives of the Lockerbie dead, especially those who sat through the trial, were not convinced.
Read Foot's report on the whole debacle.
Job done. Well done to the Scots.
The bloke might not have been innocent but he certainly should not have been found guilty of the offence charged on the paltry and undependable evidence produced at the trial. The evidence wasn't there. Releasing him saved us the money of a costly and embarrassing appeal.
The relatives of the Lockerbie dead, especially those who sat through the trial, were not convinced.
Read Foot's report on the whole debacle.
Job done. Well done to the Scots.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi probably did it, but if he did so, it would have been under orders from the Gaddafi regime. All the focus on him was just detracting attention from the fact that the man who ordered it was still sat in Tripoli and was apparently our 'friend'.
Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
JagLover said:
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi probably did it, but if he did so, it would have been under orders from the Gaddafi regime. All the focus on him was just detracting attention from the fact that the man who ordered it was still sat in Tripoli and was apparently our 'friend'.
Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
I suggest you have a read of the report Derek mentioned. It's called Lockerbie - The flight from Justice by Paul Foot. He is one of the few journalists to actually attend the trial through its entirety, and it makes for interesting reading. That 'he probably did it' is not the conclusion I reached after doing so. The trial was a farce, and at the very least his conviction should have been quashed and a retrial ordered.Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
JagLover said:
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi probably did it, but if he did so, it would have been under orders from the Gaddafi regime. All the focus on him was just detracting attention from the fact that the man who ordered it was still sat in Tripoli and was apparently our 'friend'.
Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
Actually he probably didn't do it, and there are huge holes in the evidence presented that convicted him. The real perpetrators are probably still sat in Iran.Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
Doesn't detract from the fact that Labour almost certainly released Al-Megrahi for financial reasons.
968 said:
JagLover said:
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi probably did it, but if he did so, it would have been under orders from the Gaddafi regime. All the focus on him was just detracting attention from the fact that the man who ordered it was still sat in Tripoli and was apparently our 'friend'.
Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
Actually he probably didn't do it, and there are huge holes in the evidence presented that convicted him. The real perpetrators are probably still sat in Iran.Now his days are numbered perhaps he, the true perpetrator, can stand trial.
Doesn't detract from the fact that Labour almost certainly released Al-Megrahi for financial reasons.
Even within the vagaries of medical prognoses the man is alive two years after a three month expiry date, it would be informative if we had an oncologist on here who had access to records - yes not going to happen but surely such people as worked on the man when in prison could tell a tiger from a pussy cat...perhaps a medic will comment in general terms.
turbobloke said:
Sure seems that way, whoever it was authorising the release in reality.
Even within the vagaries of medical prognoses the man is alive two years after a three month expiry date, it would be informative if we had an oncologist on here who had access to records - yes not going to happen but surely such people as worked on the man when in prison could tell a tiger from a pussy cat...perhaps a medic will comment in general terms.
No oncologist, or any other doctor can give a truly accurate time prediction of lifespan, as it is too complex a decision to make, and requires too many variables. To have released him on this basis was unwise, in my view, though of course we don't know the extent of the spread of his cancer.Even within the vagaries of medical prognoses the man is alive two years after a three month expiry date, it would be informative if we had an oncologist on here who had access to records - yes not going to happen but surely such people as worked on the man when in prison could tell a tiger from a pussy cat...perhaps a medic will comment in general terms.
So what is worse: imprisoning an innocent man for political reasons or releasing an innocent man for political influence?
There is little doubt that he was not guilty as charged.
The victims of the bombing are dead so byond harm but their relatives have been let down.
The most probable explanation of the bombing was that it was in retaliation for the destruction of IR655, another case where the offender got away with an horrendous crime, except in the case of the latter the bloke got a medal.
Read Paul Foot's report. It is quite chilling.
There is little doubt that he was not guilty as charged.
The victims of the bombing are dead so byond harm but their relatives have been let down.
The most probable explanation of the bombing was that it was in retaliation for the destruction of IR655, another case where the offender got away with an horrendous crime, except in the case of the latter the bloke got a medal.
Read Paul Foot's report. It is quite chilling.
If the trial was unsafe, then the chap should have been released on those grounds.
He wasn't.
He was released on fabricated medical evidence that he was about to die.
I'm all for justice. But releasing somebody from prison on a pretence is not justice in my eyes.
Justice should never be the tool of politics. This whole episode stank to high heaven.
He wasn't.
He was released on fabricated medical evidence that he was about to die.
I'm all for justice. But releasing somebody from prison on a pretence is not justice in my eyes.
Justice should never be the tool of politics. This whole episode stank to high heaven.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff